Facebook will let Kazakhstan government directly flag content it deems harmful

The only thing that matters to Facebook is money, and denying this mechanism to the Kazakh government, and the potential loss of the Kazakh audience, is simply a case of leaving money on the table to them.

So, now Facebook just throws the towel? Wouldn't be surprised if they will do the same in China (to access the market) and why not the US also?

Something very troublesome is happening at Facebook.

Would we rather have FB censor or our local representatives?

If your answer is ‘it depends on what the local representatives are doing’ then you are really asking FB to censor, whey they aren’t great at.

Isn't the US already directly flagging problematic facebook content?

This was the response from White House press secretary Jen Psaki given on July 15, 2021:

> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.

https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-ce...

I think that's a good idea (edit: i can't see why it's bad). FB are caught between a rock and a hard place. Damned if they censor, damned if they don't. Offloading the problem to the nearest government is more beneficial to everyone involved. FB was never about protecting free speech - it was about being a profitable enterprise, and why not?. The sooner this illusion falls away the better.

actually, this is a pretty interesting move by facebook.

* If they put themselves in the position of "guardians of morality" they will be steamrolled by the amount of content on their platform. Good enforcement would cost billions, automated methods suffer false positives and negatives. * Putting themselves in that position also makes them responsible for the content on their platform, opening them up to lawsuits and sactions. * Failure to enforce results in being banned from countries altogether.

the alternative, which I haven't thought of before now, would be "fine, here's some admin controls for your countries. Now you can hire some people and moderate content as you like". This seems like a pretty brilliant move. No longer are facebook responsible for bad moderation, each government is. FB also save themselves a ton of money.

Will this be better or worse for consumers in the end? I'm actually not sure. There are actually some valid upsides to delegating moderation to the governments of the world.

Sophie Zhang has been asking for parliaments to give her a hearing. Apart from a minor committe in the EU parliament her relevations (which are far more serious than the other FB revelations; people are dying here) have received little attention.

Philosophical question: does it matter whether the people doing the flagging the content are governments or activists or employees? To me it seems like a marginal difference. Yes I understand there is a power differential in that a government typically has an army and a monopoly on use of force. However, the effects of censorship are just as strong whether the policies are pushed by a centralized authoritarian government or a decentralized web of motivated political activists. The best FB can probably do is to allow free speech maximally within the bounds of their local jurisdiction.

> The statement quoted Facebook’s Regional Public Policy Director, George Chen, as saying the company hoped the measure would help the government deal with harmful content in a more efficient and effective manner. He said the company was working with Kazakhstan particularly on “online safety for children”.

I've always wondered how people who lie for a living feel.

How is it different than letting the “experts” mostly comprised of DC establishment “fact check” like they do those here?

They should do the same in the US. At the very least the government is bound by some rules while censoring

It's sad to see that they have no spine. It's not like they're hurting for the Kazakhstan market, why not send a message?

Ah but who am I kidding, this is Facebook. The "they trust me. dumb fucks" company

Profits over people, always.

Wow. The Facebook footgun just doesn't stop firing.

If the government of Kazakhstan gets this kind of tool, why not the US? What is this Kazakhstan anyways, to get powers our elected leaders don't?

How would this work in America. Would you want Trump flagging harmful content? Would you want Biden flagging harmful content. Is a government still by the people and for the people when the oligarchy tells the people what to think, say, and believe?